Christ as the firstborn

[Nomad]

Thank you for that honest statement.

A man's heart is like soil in which seed of God's truth and/or darnel weed (imitation truths) become planted.

A man must be willing to critique his own roots to prove their quality before change can take place.

When we see that anyone only seeks to protect the roots in their heart rather than humbly being willing to examine their quality, we may as well forget them, at least until another time when that may have changed. Perhaps another worker will come along and find that it is then different.

I desire all the best for you Nomad. I truly do love you.

Yes, my "statement" was honest and true, but it certainly wasn't in your favor. You are truly delusional Vengle.

 

[Vengle]

Yes, my "statement" was honest and true, but it certainly wasn't in your favor. You are truly delusional Vengle.

Delusional enough that I was humble before you even to allow you to see the process of some of my own beliefs change.

Why not go back over this thread and look at that process as it openly occurred with me.

I love you friend.

 

[Vengle]

We are not finished here by a long shot, Insight.

The problem with trying to explain Christ's need for justification to a Trinitarian apologist is that he has an all too convenient collection of ideas stored away to use as blockers to his having to even think about what we say.

Concerning Jesus' need for justification he dismisses it as the mystery of the "fully God, fully man" portion of their belief.

I would like to continue on to speak of the least complex to the most complex of their beliefs to see through, in that order.

By the time we hit their hardest to deal with fallacies the body of evidence we have produced will already be so great that this fact in itself will move some to the humility which is mandatory to be able and see through the rest.

For example, the "no savior beside me" issue would be a good one for us to discuss at this stage. Or, the "with us is God" belief.

Of course I have nothing against your commenting here and now as to the point of Jesus' need for justification. It might be good that you did.

You certainly have much valuable insight from which I have learned much and for which I am grateful.

It is always good that we keep in mind that even with the common people the greatest tool they (the leaders teaching this doctrine to the common people) use to entrap is that mystery idea. With it they seek the most complex things they can devise so that these things then stifle the simple thinking. They do not know they are doing this. At least not all of them. They are doing what they have been taught for the most part. And the one who really set that belief in place is very sly.

 

[Vengle]

OK. I waited for Insight but he evidently has signed off for now.

Let's look at 1 Timothy 3:16 first from the KJV:

1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (KJV)

Now let's look at it from the ASV:

1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory." (ASV)

Why the difference?

The difference is because the original Greek language text does not say it was God that was there manifested in the flesh. The word is <G3739> "hos", which is more directly translated correctly as "who". It therefore infers "He who" and does refer directly to Jesus. But it is a Trinitarian assumption that this then means "God".

1 Timothy 3:16 And <G2532> without controversy <G3672> great <G3173> is <G2076> the <G3588> mystery <G3466> of <G3588> godliness <G2150>: <God> <G3739> was manifest <G5319> in <G1722> the <G9999> flesh <G4561>, justified <G1344> in <G1722> the <G9999> Spirit <G4151>, seen <G3700> of angels <G0032>, preached <G2784> unto <G1722> the <G9999> Gentiles <G1484>, believed on <G4100> in <G1722> the <G9999> world <G2889>, received up <G0353> into <G1722> glory <G1391>.

This is why I wanted you to see that first the Father manifested the Son to us, that through the Son we might then have the Father manifested to us.

Now you have the correct platform to discuss the justification of Jesus.

Notice that even Strong's Geek Dictionary does not claim it is "God" there, not even in its roots:

<G3739> hos -- pronounced: hos

including feminine he -- pronounced: hay

and neuter ho -- pronounced: ho -- probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article 3588); the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that: KJV -- one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who(-m, -se), etc. See also 3757.

<G3588> ho -- pronounced: ho

including the feminine, he -- pronounced: hay,

and the neuter, to -- pronounced: to -- in all their inflections; the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): KJV -- the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.

<G3757> hou -- pronounced: hoo -- genitive case of 3739 as adverb; at which place, i.e. where: KJV -- where(-in), whither(-soever).

Strong's was evidently so ashamed of the KJV translators having used the word God there that they did not even mention it in their display of the KJV renderings of that word in their dictionary.

Nomad knows this stuff. He merely prefers to keep it silent. He desires to believe in his doctrine so strongly that he will rationalize things like this away and also rationalize that there is no need for you to know about it, justifying it as only something that might confuse you.

This is what I said; The teachers of this doctrine seek to rob you of your opportunity even to use simple reasoning for yourself.

That Jesus also had to be manifested to us by the Father before we could know Jesus (as Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:22 show) in no way makes Jesus literally God.

 

[Nomad]

I guess we're finished with the word "justification" and how it applies to Christ?

Once again, for someone who is "deep into Greek translation" you're ignorance is astounding Vengle. The reason for the difference between English translations is because there is a textual variant to deal with at 1 Tim. 3:16. This is why I do not personally use this verse as proof of Christ's deity. The correct reading is open to debate.

If you want to make a case for which Greek textual platform has the correct reading, be it Textus Receptus/Byzantine, or the eclectic modern Critical Text, I'm all ears. I'll give you a little hint. The TR is the Greek text behind the KJV and the CT is the text behind most modern versions. Here's another hint. The correct reading is not based on which one best supports your view. You're going to have to give me better arguments than that.

 

[Vengle]

I guess we're finished with the word "justification" and how it applies to Christ?

Once again, for someone who is "deep into Greek translation" you're ignorance is astounding Vengle. The reason for the difference between English translations is because there is a textual variant to deal with at 1 Tim. 3:16. This is why I do not personally use this verse as proof of Christ's deity. The correct reading is open to debate.

If you want to make a case for which Greek textual platform has the correct reading, be it Textus Receptus/Byzantine, or the eclectic modern Critical Text, I'm all ears. I'll give you a little hint. The TR is the Greek text behind the KJV and the CT is the text behind most modern versions. Here's another hint. The correct reading is not based on which one best supports your view. You're going to have to give me better arguments than that.

That is not surprising.

Even in the highly unaccepted spurious script you refer to that the Stephanus Textus Receptus there used, the variant "theos" does not appear with any possibility of the definite article; and so definitely at best would call for the translation of it as "godlike one" in accord to the use of the term "godliness" which precedes it.

And that is the real reason you are willing to let that one slide. You know in your heart of hearts that the person being referred to is the example to us of godliness and therefore a godlike one. It is all too clear in the text. How silly it would be to think of God Himself as an example of godliness (meaning one who imitates God) or a godlike one.

Jesus was definitely a godlike one even as we also should be.

I chuckle at you because you are so cocky and self-sure about what you think you know.

I have copies of the scripts on my computer.

My goal is to keep you from wasting my time and confusing the picture with your foolishness.

That is a cheap tactic it seems that you use.

 

[Vengle]

I will do you a small favor here and tell you that the issue of justification relates to why so many reject the use of theos there as spurious (even knowing it cannot be the capital G God), particularly since the term "godliness" is literally "the recovering well".

It is "the mystery of the recovering well".

Which really refers to the one coming to overcome on our behalf. Thus the need of justification.

 

[us2are1]

Tested how?

Lived a life pleasing to God without sin. Tested to death on the cross. the Lamb without blemish.

 

[Vengle]

Lived a life pleasing to God without sin. Tested to death on the cross. the Lamb without blemish.

Amen

Our biggest responsibility with this verse (as with any) is to avoid drawing beyond what is there. And that was Insight's focus and why he went directly to the issue of justification.

 

[us2are1]

"I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone"

The description of the beginning of the building of the spiritual temple, showing that Christ just as the Apostles were stones of that building's structure.

Ephesians 2:18 "For through him (Jesus) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Revelation 22:9);
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

So that is very appropriate what you point out us2are1. We see how it is that Jesus manifest Yahweh to us. His Father's spirit is able to have communion with him because Jesus is holy in his own spirit.

In taking the many on whom his Father called to him to be as brothers (Romans 8:29) Jesus taught them by the bath in the water of the Word to themselves become holy in their spirits that they might also enjoy that same communion as Jesus with his Father's spirit.

Thus they being joined together as one body with Jesus "the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord".

Yes, into a holy city among whose holy people God is able to reside. :) "builded together (with Jesus as the chief cornerstone) for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

They did not become literally God. But they became one body with Christ and like as Christ they are now able to have direct approach to God by spirit.

The Father is thus now manifested to them just as the Father is, was and has been from Jesus' beginning, manifest to Jesus.

Thus they are even said to set upon Jesus' throne with him, all of them together (including Jesus as the chief among them) sitting next to and at the right hand of the Father in the Father's throne.

Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

How dare anyone resist (or worse, seek to hide) such a beautiful and all important picture of what Our wonderful God is doing in His Son.

Now I want to point out something about Ephesians 2: 21 " In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:"

The phrase "in the Lord" at the end there, is not what the original language text actually says. I will explain.

The word "the" does not occur there with "lord". "Lord" occurs there with an absence of the definite article. And "lord" minus that definite article actually means "supreme in authority".

So it is actually telling us that this holy temple (Christ and his brethren) exists jointly sharing the supreme authority given it of the Father Yahweh.

Amen

Ask God to remove the man and He will replace him with His Spirit.

Ephesians 2
22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit




.

 

[Insight]

If Christ were "made righteous" as you claim, which would imply that he was somehow a sinner, he would have been useless as a savior. Jesus, himself, would have needed a savior. Remember, Christ was the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. A sacrificial lamb had to be spotless.

I had to sift through the error but I eventually found it.

You dont understand Rom 8:3 & 2 Cor 5:21

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (Romans 8:3)

And

For he (Yahweh) hath made him to be sin (sin's flesh) for us, who knew no sin! that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

So what in Yahwehs eyes was sinful in Jesus But who knew no moral sin?

What did Jesus need to be redeemed or saved from and was the first to overcome its power?

What was the weakness he possessed in his body?

He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. (Hebrews 5:2)

How was Jesus justified from this weakness?

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, Jesus himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, (Hebrews 2:14)

Nomad doesn’t understand the nature of Christ and cannot define what precisely God overcome in his body. Now Nomad can play with his Greek text all he likes it will not help him here.

His theology ceases at Jesus being sinless in mind (true) and in nature (untrue).

He only has half the story - the other half cannot be gained while holding firmly to Trinitarian teachings.

In short Nomad cannot define Jesus Christ's association with sins flesh and why it was absolutely critical he be raised up out of fallen stock. Rom 1:3 MAtt 1:1

This fundamental understanding would see his theological house fall like a stack of cards.

But he will not venture there becuase he is afraid.

There is ONE sin in Yahwehs eyes from which Jesus was not responsible for although suffered from its affects.

Nomad

WHAT WAS THAT SIN?

In what way did God make Jesus SIN but Jesus knew (morally) no SIN? 2 Cor 5:21 & Rom 8:3

Insight

 

[Vengle]

Take heart instead of offense Nomad as we all are in that same boat.

Eventually we see that even in our weakness others can look at us and benefit from what they observe.

Even before we understand it God uses us as all things for the benefit of helping those that love Him to grow.

And that is a privilege rather than a disgrace if we are humble about it.

 

[Insight]

Clue: Rom 5:15,17, 19

 

[Nomad]

Even in the highly unaccepted spurious script you refer to that the Stephanus Textus Receptus there used, the variant "theos" does not appear with any possibility of the definite article. . .

1. Highly unaccepted? You're kidding right? Why single out Stephanus' editions of the TR? How about the TR editions of Beza and Erasmus which the KJV translators also utilized? I suspect that Stephanus is what popped up first when you Googled Textus Receptus. Why play games like this, Vengle? It's obvious that you really don't know what you're talking about. It's o.k. not to know something. Just don't pretend that you do. It makes you look foolish.

2. It's simply not true that "theos" requires the definite article to refer to God, (See John 1:6, 12, 13).

And that is the real reason you are willing to let that one slide.

I didn't let anything "slide" Vengle. I just refuse to use controversial texts when there are so many others that prove that Jesus is Yahweh without the added problems that textual variants bring. Also, you failed to make even one textual critical argument for which reading is correct. Like I said before, we do not determine which variant reading is most likely the original through personal preference. "I like this one better" is not a valid argument.

 

[Vengle]

There you go with your smoke screen again Nomad. You know full well that it can also be governed by inflection (or maybe you don't, maybe I credit you to know more than you actually do). What we see in the verses you cited are good examples of the Greek accomplishing the same by inflection. That cannot be done at 1 Timothy 3:16 and you know it (if you are as up on the Greek as you claim). So at 1 Timothy 3:16 the definite article would be a necessity. And even it would have to conform to certain rules of inflection.

This is why I prefer to avoid translation discussion with you. It only gives you more ways to twist things that common listeners have no way to really understand.

It sure tells me about you, though. But I consider that I may be wrong about your level of training.

PS/ I have once or twice Googled things since I came to this cite (not today nor yesterday). What you see from me is mostly what is packed in me from years of pondering and begging the holy spirit. :)

I don't know about you but I am serious about this stuff. And you have not even begun to tap what God has mercifully hidden in me. He is my strength and my power. He speaks to me.

 

[Nomad]

For he (Yahweh) hath made him to be sin (sin's flesh) for us, who knew no sin! that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

No, Insight. "Sin's flesh" is your own addition to that text. It says no such thing. Christ took on our sins by imputation in the same way that his righteousness is imputed to us for justification. Again, if Christ was born with Original Sin he could not have saved anyone.

What was the weakness he possessed in his body?

He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. (Hebrews 5:2)

That text is talking about Levitical priests, not Christ. This is what happens when we're hunting for proof-texts and disregard context.

Heb 5:1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.
Heb 5:2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness.
Heb 5:3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people.

 

[Vengle]

If I understand Nomad correctly I am very surprised to see that he has this one as I see it. Christ took to his body men who are beset of sin. And he patiently loves and works to bathe them and free them of sins toll upon them.

None of this proves Jesus to be God, however.

I am just as surprised that he made proper connection to the Levitical priesthood.

Imagine that :lol:

This is all part of "the mystery of the recovering well" which I referred to earlier.

Which Nomad bucked against :lol:

 

[Nomad]

There you go with your smoke screen again Nomad. You know full well that it can also be governed by inflection (or maybe you don't, maybe I credit you to know more than you actually do).

Really? I already gave you three verses where "theos" is anarthrous and it still clearly refers to God. Theos in those examples were in the genitive case. I won't go over those again.

Here's an example where theos is anarthrous in the accusative case and refers to God:

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

Here's an example where theos is anarthrous in the nominative case and refers to God:

Nah 1:2 God is jealous, and the Lord avenges; the Lord avenges with wrath; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries, and he cuts off his enemies. (Septuagint)

I assume that this is what you're complaining about? Need more?

 

[Vengle]

Really? I already gave you three verses where "theos" is anarthrous and it still clearly refers to God. Theos in those examples were in the genitive case. I won't go over those again.

Here's an example where theos is anarthrous in the accusative case and refers to God:

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

Here's an example where theos is anarthrous in the nominative case and refers to God:

Nah 1:2 God is jealous, and the Lord avenges; the Lord avenges with wrath; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries, and he cuts off his enemies. (Septuagint)

I assume that this is what you're complaining about? Need more?

OK, you have proved you are smart.

Now move forward.

 

[Nomad]

OK, you have proved you are smart.

Now move forward.

Well, that's not the goal here. Truth is the goal, not slick arguments.